Forum:Navbox categories
The question was raised about what rules or standards should be used to not only decide what articles go into the very nice Locations NavBox we have (thank you, NNW) but how to sort and title them within the NavBox. For this discussion, please use the following terms: * Map: An area that a pony can move about in without using a portal. * Hostile: A map that features combat, either with mobs or other players. ---- As I understand the current proposed "rules" (in quotes because I don't expect slavish obedience to them), they could be: * Urban: Currently called "Town", these are maps that typically cover large areas and connect to two or more other large/connected maps (i.e. a "major" map). They also are non-hostile. Most feature a large number of structures and resemble towns or cities. This category would include all four of the current cities and towns and most if not all the planned ones. * Wild: Or "Wilderness", these can be major or minor maps, but they are all hostile. The frequency of structures is significantly lower, so natural growths or unusual terrain are much more common. This category would include the Heartlands, the Gem Mines, the Evershade Forest, and the PVP Arena. * Minor maps: While size is the primary difference here from major maps, minor maps are non-hostile. Most are building interiors as well, although Sweet Apple Acres would be included for connecting to only one other map. * Landmarks: If it doesn't have its own map but deserves inclusion in the NavBox, it's a landmark. These features will tend to be be either A) associated with in-map portals, B) prominent compared with its surroundings due to either size or features, or C) of sufficient importance in the game that it needs its own article to be properly addressed. Note that I do not require any of the above to have a separate article. A highly visible but otherwise unimportant landmark could be included via a redirect to a heading inside another article (such as was done with Dialogue). The above would mean we'd want to add articles or at least descriptions with headers for the Cantermore University, the Palace in Cantermore, the Cloudoseum, and the shortcut portals in Cloudopolis and the Crystal Kingdom. Silver Scroll has suggested the Armorer in the Crystal Kingdom, and I agree. --McClaw (talk) 03:30, September 2, 2015 (UTC) : Oh dear, it seems that another forum topic covering half of what my forum topic is about was created while I was creating it. Should I add what differs in my suggestions here (making the other topic only about Infobox location), or do you want to add yours to mine? They seem largely similar. I like your suggestion regarding subheadings inside articles. Silver Scroll (Calmevir) (talk) 04:22, September 2, 2015 (UTC) : Now that I've actually considered all of this in-depth, my thoughts regarding several points: * Urban maps ** can be hostile under the definitions valid for this discussion. Cloudopolis contained Lv2 Hornets during OSE9 (beside the rainbow lake at the top of the rainbow waterfall). ** Observing that, your definition for "urban map" as you phrased it currently comes down to (in the strictest sense) "covers a large area and connects to at least two other maps that meet this definition." The Heartlands would meet this definition. Wouldn't rephrasing "Most feature a (...)" to "They feature a (...)", making the towns or cities (aka urban areas) part of the definition of "urban map", make more sense? And why does connecting to a minimum number of other maps have to be part of the definition? This would run into problems should any of the future towns happen to only be connected to one other town (improbable, but possible). ** Note that even with that rephrase, the Heartlands would still meet the definition. The best "urban map" rephrase I can do that wouldn't include the Heartlands: "Primarily features a large number of buildings, resembling a town or city." (I dropped the map size requirement as well, as it also didn't seem essential.) ** At first glance, while my suggestion in the other thread ("map containing a settlement where the name of the map matches the name of said settlement") seems more robust than my suggested optimized version of your "urban map" definition ("Primarily" is subjective), it would run into problems if we ever get an urban map with more than one town or city, while yours wouldn't. However, that still wouldn't make said "urban map" an "urban location" in the sense that most casual readers of the wiki would understand it - they would expect the individual towns to be listed. If such a map is deemed a realistic possibility, we'd need a definition that results in exactly that. * Wild locations: Continuring to read through these, these seem more like descriptors than actual definitions. I'd hate to be stuck having to use these to make decisions. My independent suggestion ("Any map (or set of maps) containing mobs that isn't urban," rephrased to meet the definitions for this thread) would however lead to the PvP area being classified as a minor map instead. I believe this makes sense, as IMHO the availability of PvP combat is not inherently tied to any inherent "wildness" of the location. Non-"wild" PvP locations are conceivable. * Minor maps: Any good categorization system needs an "all others" category. I believe this should be it for maps. Reasoning for defining this category as non-hostile? Under your suggested categorization, this would be the only category to have this criterion. * Landmarks: Is it really such a good idea to include landmarks that aren't interesting enough to have their own article in the navbox? That would lead to a large amount of clutter very quickly, impeding simple navigation which is the entire point of a navbox. By not including Cantermore Library, we've already decided that the navbox isn't a list of all locations that somehow seem interesting. My opinion: if it isn't interesting enough for its own article, it shouldn't be in the navbox. (I know this stands contrary to what I said earlier, but now I've actually had time to think.) * Since this post is getting long enough as it is, and as a CS student I have an aversion to copypasting content anyway, I will refrain from pasting my own suggestion regarding landmarks, see here instead. It's the second bulleted list, as well as the update immediately below that. : Once again, apologies for the pedantery. Silver Scroll (Calmevir) (talk) 05:49, September 2, 2015 (UTC) :: Pedantry is what detailed discussions are all about. But duplicate forum topics are pointless at best. Let's use yours. --McClaw (talk) 12:48, September 2, 2015 (UTC)